Having skimmed over the forum, one of the concerns I have at the outset is that the ideas appear to be mimicing, rather than replacing the DDC. I would like to see people using their minds more about this issue. Mimicing is a definite no-no from an aesthetic point of view, and it makes me question what the point of such a replacement in the first place? I say if you are going to do something new, make it new. Make it noticeably 2008, rather than an updated 18-hundred-whatever.

The other issue I have is that thinking about book order in the abstract is quite different from action thinking. Considering that this replacement will be largely about placing books on a relative shelf order, I think we should be developing that standard while actually shelving books. So, here is my idea:

Go to your local public library’s catalogue and using any random selection process of your choice, place a hold on 20 or more books.

Explain how you came to these shelf orders, which one you liked the best and why.

Or you can do something else similar. The broad point i want to make is that, if this thing is going to replace DDS, then it ought to be based on some sort of new foundations, hopefully considering not only what the user thinks, but how the user will eventually use the system. The only way to get at how people use something is through action.

All in all, I love this idea and kudos to Tim Spalding for proposing it. And by the way, he is looking for a leader for this project — someone who will facilitate the process without dominating it. You got the guts? Go for it!